Should Entanglement Measures be Monogamous or Faithful?

Cécilia Lancien, Sara Di Martino, Marcus Huber, Marco Piani, Gerardo Adesso, and Andreas Winter
Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060501 – Published 1 August 2016
PDFHTMLExport Citation

Abstract

“Is entanglement monogamous?” asks the title of a popular article [B. Terhal, IBM J. Res. Dev. 48, 71 (2004)], celebrating C. H. Bennett’s legacy on quantum information theory. While the answer is affirmative in the qualitative sense, the situation is less clear if monogamy is intended as a quantitative limitation on the distribution of bipartite entanglement in a multipartite system, given some particular measure of entanglement. Here, we formalize what it takes for a bipartite measure of entanglement to obey a general quantitative monogamy relation on all quantum states. We then prove that an important class of entanglement measures fail to be monogamous in this general sense of the term, with monogamy violations becoming generic with increasing dimension. In particular, we show that every additive and suitably normalized entanglement measure cannot satisfy any nontrivial general monogamy relation while at the same time faithfully capturing the geometric entanglement structure of the fully antisymmetric state in arbitrary dimension. Nevertheless, monogamy of such entanglement measures can be recovered if one allows for dimension-dependent relations, as we show explicitly with relevant examples.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Received 13 April 2016

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.060501

© 2016 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Quantum Information, Science & Technology

Authors & Affiliations

Cécilia Lancien1,2, Sara Di Martino1, Marcus Huber3,1,7, Marco Piani4, Gerardo Adesso5, and Andreas Winter1,6

  • 1Física Teòrica: Informació i Fenòmens Quàntics, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, ES-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
  • 2Institut Camille Jordan, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 43 Boulevard du 11 Novembre 1918, 69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France
  • 3Group of Applied Physics, University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
  • 4SUPA and Department of Physics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0NG, United Kingdom
  • 5School of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
  • 6ICREA—Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, Passeig Lluis Companys 23, ES-08010 Barcelona, Spain
  • 7Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, A-1090 Vienna, Austria

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

Supplemental Material (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 117, Iss. 6 — 5 August 2016

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×
×

Images

×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Letters

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×